Talk:Jack the Ripper

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

Many theories regarding Jack the Ripper's identity are speculation, however, in recent years people believe his identity to be Arron Kominsky; a Polish barber (of course, this remains uncertain). I wish for editors to add this due to him being a prime suspect in the case. The Great Shadow (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

OLd news, very old. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is being widely reported that he IS Jack the ripper.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1958327/jack-ripper-case-solved-face-identity-revealed-DNA

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13930185/Jack-Ripper-unmasked-Astonishing-new-DNA-evidence-read-identity-covered-shadowy-group-decades.html

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/uk-world-news/jack-ripper-identified-aaron-kosminski-9611598

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jack-ripper-mystery-deepens-face-33836365

These are just some of the articles confirming that it is Arron Kominsky, the jewish barber.

Even scholary links point toward it being him

LANGA, A., Sketches from the history of psychiatry. PSYCHIATRIC BULLETIN VOL 16 NO 12, p.786.

Lekh, S.K. et al. (1992) ‘The case of Aaron Kosminski: was he Jack the Ripper?’, Psychiatric Bulletin, 16(12), pp. 786–788. doi:10.1192/pb.16.12.786.

I think it is time the bullet was bit Klokar (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A lot of crap sources there, and 1992 is not recent. Again old news very old. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This purported DNA evidence was trashed two months ago and the journal printed what is essentially a notice of retraction after the authors were unable to produce any of the original data.[1] DrKay (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

James maybrick

If you read the book the ripper diary “the final chapter” you will see without any doubt who Jack the Ripper was.do “not” read into the hype regarding the ripper diary.the final chapter is a masterpiece in regards to tracking the true story behind the diary and the real man who was jack. 2001:8003:B074:8500:F499:F80A:9688:F4C7 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As with every other "Final solution" it is not more valid than any other claim (and like every book on Saucey Jack it claims all others ignoreD or did to have the "vialt evidence" IT UNCOVERED), except that there is a claim that the diaries are forgeries (by the person who wrote them). So it is not proven, just another allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

2 "killers"

Two killers "Jack" And the Ripper. Jack was someone trying to claim fame and notoriety for the killings. The ripper is the actual killer. The ripper is a woman whose husband contracted a disease like syphilis from sex workers and cost her a child and her life. That is why no sexual act was committed. And why the sex organs were destroyed. She blamed them for her husband's indiscretions. This is why all the killings were silent and no defensive wounds were found. Women don't find other women threatening. Men are gruesome women are cruel. 41.193.88.151 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Some meta stuff on this article regarding descriptions of the victims as "prostitutes" and Hallie Rubenhold

I know that the topic has been discussed before (see archive [2][3] [4][5][6]), but I've found a research paper that specifically discusses how this Wikipedia talk page has been handling the description of the victims and the inclusion of Hallie Rubenhold as a source. So I'm posting the relevant quote from the research paper here as some food for thought:

"The principles of ‘neutrality’ and ‘notability’ disproportionately negatively impact the representation of women and people of colour on Wikipedia (Edwards 2015; Ferran-Ferrer et al. 2022). For example, the ‘Talk’ page for the article ‘Jack the Ripper’ preserves how feminist research may be dismissed as ‘fringe theory’ because it diverges from previous scholarship.Footnote 8 Discussions in 2020 concerned historian Haille Rubenhold’s research which, among other points, argues that naming all of the victims ‘prostitutes’ reproduces Victorian misogynist reportage. References to Rubenhold’s book have been repeatedly deleted, and ‘consensus’ against Rubenhold’s research remains firm (as of February 2024)." Nakonana (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Its a shame we do not in fact say they all were. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? Nakonana (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the fact they have not even read our article, and make a claim so easily disproven renders it highly questionable as a source. It also (nicely) illustrates why none of the arguments used for the inclusion of Haille Rubenhold’s research have convinced anyone. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I assumed that your first comment was referring to calling all the victims "prostitutes", but in your second comment, you are speaking about the research paper instead? I'm not sure how the fact or assumption that the researchers have not read the article is a reason for why we should call all victims "prostitutes". What have those two things have to do with each other? How can one of them serve as an explanation for the other? Or have I misunderstood your first comment? Nakonana (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We do not say they were all prostitutes. Thus A, there is nothing for us to alter and B. the fact they make this error means there is no way we could use this anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

They don't actually say that the article is calling "all" victims prostitutes. What they point out is how Rubenhold's feminist research book was discussed and dismissed on Wikipedia for being "fringe".

Another research paper points out that "The allegation that Rubenhold’s research amounts to a speculative history as asserted by Ripperologists is hypocritical, considering the field’s renowned tradition of propagating tenuous conspiracy theories." I.e. there are plenty of sources that are just as speculative as Rubendold, yet they are included in the article, while Rubenhold is not. One might argue, we have a whole article that gives a platform to speculative history: Jack the Ripper suspects. Yet, the Wikipedia community was extremely reluctant to add some speculation from a feminist point of view.

But as I said, I'm not posting this to achieve a particular change in the article, but rather as some "meta stuff" and "food for thought".

My previous question remains unanswered, though: Why is it "a shame we do not in fact say they all were [prostitutes]"? Nakonana (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"h, among other points, argues that naming all of the victims ‘prostitutes’ reproduces Victorian misogynist reportag", we do not. Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"historian Haille Rubenhold’s research [...] argues that naming all of the victims ‘prostitutes’ reproduces Victorian misogynist reportage"

The author of that research paper do not either. It's Rubenhold who argues this. Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Another quote from the second research paper:

"Analysis of the Casebook forum shows that whenever a criticism of ‘the nap theory’ [i.e. Rubenhold's theory] was contradicted in this way it was almost universally ignored by users, who immediately returned to nit-picking Rubenhold’s work. The lack of engagement with commentary in defence of Rubenhold’s research is indicative of an overarching agenda to marginalise The Five in Ripperology and, in turn, re-establish the mythologised foundations that the Ripper case is built on."

I note, my remark on the platform that we give other speculations in this field but not Rubenhold, and my question remain unaddressed. Nakonana (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We often exclude all manner of speculation from this article. Rubenhold is not a special case. DrKay (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

See, as I've said above, this is not correct. This article is like a prime example of not excluding speculations, because if you'd really exclude "all manner of speculation" here, there would be hardly anything left of the article.

Just some examples of speculations from the lede and the introduction of the Murders section (emphasis added by me):

• "Rumours that the murders were connected"
• "The letter is widely believed"
• "The public came increasingly to believe"
• "combination of historical research, folklore, and pseudohistory, capturing public imagination to the present day."
• "are often considered the most likely to be linked"
• "uncertainty to how many victims were murdered"
• "Opinions vary as to whether these murders should be linked to the same culprit"

It's just as the second research paper said:

"The allegation that Rubenhold’s research amounts to a speculative history as asserted by Ripperologists is hypocritical, considering the field’s renowned tradition of propagating tenuous conspiracy theories." Nakonana (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

These are not conspiracy theories; they are generally held interpretations that even Rubenhold agrees with. DrKay (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in, I have had my say. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems a waste of editor's time to keep having these conversations about Rubenhold. Its time to drop the stick. --John B123 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A few nitpicks with the article I'd like to discuss changing

I don't believe this is an instance where being bold would be more beneficial than disruptive, and would likely lead to a discussion anyway. So, lets start with one.

1. Change the lead sentence (back) to "Jack the Ripper is the name given to an unidentified serial killer...."
This article is both about what little is known of the person and the de-facto legend that came about it. Fronting the (unknown) individual in the lead seems less applicable to the article as a whole. Basically, we have Jack the Ripper (the unidentified person) and Jack the Ripper (the legend that exists as a result of the individual being unidentified), and the name covers both these things in its scope. The individual is not the legend if that makes sense. This change would better reflect the full scope. It's splitting hairs for sure, but this reads as an improvement to me.

2. Motive: Unknown (possibly sexual sadism and/or rage) => Motive: Unknown
Within the body it says psychologists have suggested that the penetration of the victims with a knife and "leaving them on display in sexually degrading positions with the wounds exposed" indicates that the perpetrator derived sexual pleasure from the attacks. This view is challenged by others, who dismiss such hypotheses as insupportable supposition. Given this is challenged information, I don't think it's appropriate for the infobox without some sort of indication of being challenged by other RS, in which it would be pointless to have altogether in the infobox. So, I propose the removal of the second part. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I've no problem with either of these edits, or even the removal of the motive parameter. DrKay (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll make the changes with a "per talk" edit summary, and hopefully, if anyone has a problem with them, they can tell me why. This is at my level of incompetence, but, having someone with history on this page approve tells me it's probably fine. Wanted to be extra-extra careful since this is an FA. AFAICT, the unknown motive is part of his notability. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)